AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably close contest between these two mobile processors, with the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H taking 8 benchmark wins and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 taking 7. Neither chip dominates outright, but the wins are concentrated in distinct areas that reveal their different design priorities.

The single largest margin belongs to AMD in integer math, where the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 109588 against Intel's 83147, a 31.8% advantage. This is the kind of result that shows up in general productivity work, spreadsheet calculations, and code compilation. AMD also holds a 20.6% lead in data compression (400887 versus 332508) and a 20% lead in extended instructions (32719 versus 27274), which covers newer CPU instruction set extensions. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 7% (43196 versus 40357), and single-thread PassMark shows AMD ahead by a slim 1.5% (4185 versus 4124).

Intel fights back with decisive wins in several specialized workloads. The largest is prime number finding, where Intel scores 337 versus AMD's 145, a 57% margin. Floating-point math also goes strongly to Intel at 103842 versus 72722, a 30% difference. Physics calculations show Intel ahead by 39% (3021 versus 1843), and data encryption favors Intel by 22.9% (26046 versus 20092). These are compute-heavy tasks that stress raw arithmetic throughput and memory access patterns.

In the Cinebench suite, the results are nearly split. R15 multicore goes to Intel by 5.1% (3027 versus 2872), and R15 single-core goes to Intel by 1.2% (301.5 versus 298). R23 multicore is essentially a tie, with AMD winning by 0.1% (18759 versus 18747). R23 single-core clearly favors Intel, which leads by 5.8% (2080 versus 1960). The PassMark multithread score is also nearly tied, with Intel ahead by just 0.9% (33802 versus 33486).

Looking at the average benchmark scores, AMD's Ryzen AI Max+ 388 sits at 49796, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core 9 273PE at 49845, a 0.1% gap, followed by the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 49394 (0.8% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 at 49228 (1.2% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G at 49196 (1.2% behind). The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a lower average score of 40967, placing it in the 87th percentile. Its closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (0.6% ahead), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 (0.6% ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G at 40718 (0.6% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41263 (0.7% ahead).

The Verdict

The data points to two different usage profiles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 delivers a higher overall average benchmark score (49796 versus 40967) and ranks in the 90th percentile, while the Intel chip ranks in the 87th. That 88-point gap in average score is small in absolute terms, but it reflects AMD's consistent strength across integer-heavy and compression workloads. For users whose daily tasks involve data processing, file archiving, or spreadsheet-heavy work, AMD's 31.8% integer lead and 20.6% compression lead are the deciding factors.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the better choice for workloads that hammer floating-point arithmetic and encryption. Its 30% lead in floating-point math, 39% lead in physics, and 22.9% lead in data encryption make it the stronger option for scientific computing, financial modeling, or any encryption-heavy security work. The 57% margin in prime number finding also indicates superior integer throughput in certain algorithmic patterns, even though AMD wins the broader integer math benchmark.

The Cinebench results show Intel holding a single-core advantage (5.8% in R23 single-core, 1.2% in R15 single-core), while multicore performance is effectively tied. Users who prioritize snappy single-threaded response in older applications or lightly threaded workloads will find Intel's edge meaningful. Users who care about total throughput across all cores will see no practical difference.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins for: integer math workloads (31.8% ahead), data compression (20.6% ahead), extended CPU instruction sets (20% ahead), random string sorting (7% ahead), single-threaded PassMark (1.5% ahead), and Cinebench R23 multicore (0.1% ahead). This profile suits general productivity, software development, database operations, and file management tools.

Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins for: prime number finding (57% ahead), physics calculations (39% ahead), floating-point math (30% ahead), data encryption (22.9% ahead), Cinebench R15 multicore (5.1% ahead), Cinebench R23 single-core (5.8% ahead), Cinebench R15 single-core (1.2% ahead), and PassMark multithread (0.9% ahead). This profile suits simulation software, encryption tools, scientific computation, and applications that rely heavily on a single fast core.

The overall win count favors Intel 8 to 7, but the margins tell the real story. AMD's wins are often large (20% to 31.8%) in everyday workloads, while Intel's wins are mixed: some are massive (30% to 57%) in specialized tasks, others are narrow (1.2% to 5.8%) in single-core or multithreaded tests. The practical takeaway is that AMD delivers broader everyday performance, while Intel specializes in arithmetic-heavy and encryption-centric tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49796, compared to 40967 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, a difference of 8829 points.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: They are effectively tied. AMD scores 18759 and Intel scores 18747, giving AMD a 0.1% lead.

Q: Is the Intel chip better at any single-core test?

A: Yes. Intel leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 5.8% (2080 versus 1960) and in Cinebench R15 single-core by 1.2% (301.5 versus 298). However, AMD leads in PassMark single-thread by 1.5% (4185 versus 4124).

Q: Which chip handles encryption workloads better?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 26046 in PassMark data encryption, which is 22.9% higher than AMD's 20092.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel scores 337 versus AMD's 145, a 57% difference.

Q: How do the two chips rank against all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H sits in the 87th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process, with the codename Strix Halo. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The thermal design power is 55 watts. The chip uses AMD Socket FP11 and supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 16 lanes available from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Radeon 8060S. The die consists of two separate 70.6 mm² pieces. Cache is structured as 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename from the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The thermal design power is 25 watts, which is less than half of AMD's 55 watts. The chip uses Intel BGA 2540 and supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Arc B390. Cache is structured as 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

The core count difference is significant: Intel has twice as many cores (16 versus 8) but the same number of threads (16), meaning Intel's cores are each single-threaded while AMD's cores each support two threads. AMD compensates with higher clock speeds, especially the 5.00 GHz boost versus Intel's 4.80 GHz. The memory architecture also differs substantially, with AMD offering a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel's dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s. This likely explains AMD's strong data compression and integer math results, which benefit from memory throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 | Intel Core Ultra X7 358H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Process node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| L1 cache per core | 80 KB | 192 KB |

| L2 cache per core | 1 MB | 3 MB |

| L3 cache shared | 32 MB | 18 MB |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe version | Gen 4 | Gen 5 |

| PCIe lanes (CPU) | 16 | 4 |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 8060S | Arc B390 |

| Release date | 2026-01-05 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part number | 100-000001980 | SA4RAQ9ET |

The specification sheet reveals a clear design split. AMD uses fewer, faster cores with simultaneous multithreading and a much wider memory bus, while Intel uses more physical cores at lower clocks with larger per-core caches and no multithreading. Intel's 3 nm process node is smaller than AMD's 4 nm, but AMD compensates with higher clock speeds. Intel supports PCIe Gen 5 but only 4 lanes from the CPU, while AMD uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The release dates are one day apart, with Intel launching on 2026-01-04 and AMD on 2026-01-05. Both chips are currently marked as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.